University of Minnesota
Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
mcps@umn.edu
612-625-6635
myU OneStop


Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science home page.

2009-2010 Colloquia

Spring 2010

January 22, 2010

"Three Aspects of Reductive Explanation in Biological Science"
Alan C. Love, Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
abstract

January 29, 2010

"The Rotational Specific Heat of Molecular Hydrogen in Quantum Theory"
Clayton Gearhart, Department of Physics, St. John's University
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology
abstract

February 5, 2010

"Form and Function: Figures in Biology Textbooks"
Laura Perini, Department of Philosophy, Pomona College
abstract

February 12, 2010

"The Technology and Social Justice Movement: Jacques Ellul, Walther Eichrodt, and the Role of Religion and the Old Testament in Debates about Rebuilding Europe after the Second World War"
Jennifer Alexander, Program in the History of Science and Technology, University of Minnesota
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology
abstract

February 19, 2010

"Thinking about Climate in the Space Age: NASA and American Climate Science"
Erik Conway, Jet Propulsion Laboratory , California Institute of Technology
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology
abstract

February 26, 2010

“In Praise of Causal Mechanisms”
Ned Hall, Department of Philosophy, Harvard University
Co-sponsored by the Department of Philosophy
abstract
3:30 pm Carlson School of Management Room1-132
**Note change of venue**

March 5, 2010

"How complicated is life…and how did it get that way?"
Kenneth Weiss, Department of Anthropology, Penn State University
abstract

March 12, 2010

No Colloquium: Spring Break

March 19, 2010

No Colloquium: Spring Break

March 24, 2010 WEDNESDAY noon

"From ‘Methodenstreit’ to the ‘Science Wars’—Lessons from Methodological and Foundational Debates in the History and Philosophy of Science”
Friedrich Stadler, Department of Philosophy and Department of Contemporary History, University of Vienna
Carlson School of Management Room1-127
**Note change of day and venue**
abstract

March 26, 2010, 12:15–1:30, 1210 Heller Hall

"Work in Progress Seminar: "Agostino Scilla, a Baroque Painter in Pursuit of Nature"
Paula Findlen, Department of History, Stanford University
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology and by the Institute for Advanced Study
**Note change of time and venue**

April 2, 2010

"Temporary Tombstones:
What the Death and Burial of Six Baboons Tells Us about Primatology"
Georgina Montgomery, Lyman Briggs School, Michigan State University
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

April 9, 2010

"Women in Science"
Margaret Rossiter, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

April 16, 2010

"Imagining the Good Society:
The Social Sciences in the American Past and Present"
Hamilton Cravens, Department of History, Iowa State University
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

April 23, 2010

“How “Wave Front” Found its Truth-Values: A Study in Semantic Stabilization”
Mark Wilson, Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh
abstract

Abstracts for Spring 2010 colloquia:

Alan Love "Three Aspects of Reductive Explanation in Biological Science"
Abstract: The inapplicability of variations on theory reduction in the context of genetics and their irrelevance to ongoing research has led to an anti-reductionist consensus in philosophy of biology. One response to this situation is to focus on forms of reductive explanation that better correspond to actual scientific reasoning (e.g., part-whole relations). Working from this perspective we explore three different aspects (fundamentality, temporality, and intrinsicality) that arise from distinct facets of reductive explanation: composition and causation. Concentrating on these aspects generates new forms of reductive explanation and conditions for their success or failure in biology and other sciences. This analysis is illustrated using the case of protein folding in molecular biology, which demonstrates its applicability and relevance, as well as illuminating the complexity of reductive reasoning in a specific biological context.

Return to top


Laura Perini
"Form and Function: Figures in Biology Textbooks"
Abstract: Current editions of general biology textbooks are filled with images. Textbook figures include drawings, diagrams and images produced by various kinds of detection processes, like electron microscopy. Their prevalence suggests that pictures play some important role, but doubts have been raised about the pedagogical value of pictures, especially for detailed, realistic pictures such as photographs. Do images really contribute to the cognitive goals of a biology course—or does their value stem only from their aesthetic appeal, serving to attract and hold student attention rather than convey essential content? What exactly do different kinds of figures have to offer? I will present an account of scientific images that can explain the differences and show how figures play pedagogically significant roles.

Return to top


Clayton Gearhart "The Rotational Specific Heat of Molecular Hydrogen in Quantum Theory"
Abstract: "Astonishing successes" and "bitter disappointment": Thus did the German theoretical physicist Fritz Reiche portray the state of quantum theory in his 1921 textbook. As Reiche's words suggest, the "old quantum theory"—that is, quantum theory as it developed during the first quarter of the 20th century, before Werner Heisenberg's breakthrough in 1925—was a mélange of inspired guesses and arbitrary assumptions, with many successes and as many frustrating failures. Reiche's words apply in miniature to the attempts to explain the behavior of the specific heat of hydrogen gas at low temperatures—among the first systems studied in the old quantum theory, and one to which Reiche made important contributions.

The story begins in 1911, when the German physical chemist Walther Nernst observed that the strange new quantum physics pioneered by Max Planck and Albert Einstein only few years earlier might both clarify unresolved problems in the specific heats of gases, and shed fresh light on quantum theory itself. The first measurements were published early in 1912 by Arnold Eucken in Nernst's laboratory in Berlin, and showed a sharp decrease in the specific heat of hydrogen, as the contribution of molecular rotations to the specific heat vanished at low temperatures.

A theoretical description of Eucken's data should have been simple—the rigid rotator (or rotating dumbbell), the model for a diatomic molecule, was a standard textbook problem, as it is today. And indeed, qualitative agreement between theory and experiment was quickly achieved. Quantitative agreement was another matter. Nernst applied a quantum theory of rotators to diatomic gases even before Eucken's measurements were completed. Over the next 15 years, Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrenfest, Max Planck, Edwin C. Kemble, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, and John Van Vleck, among many others, attempted their own theoretical descriptions of the rotational specific heat, as did Reiche himself in a widely cited 1919 paper. But despite these persistent and energetic efforts, the problem proved intractable. Not until 1927, two years after Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and others inaugurated modern quantum mechanics, did the American theorist David Dennison develop a successful theory. I will sketch the history of this intriguing episode in the history of quantum theory, concentrating on the period before 1925, where we see a community of physicists and physical chemists struggling to solve a problem that, in the old quantum theory, had no solution.

Return to top

Jennifer Alexander "The Technology and Social Justice Movement: Jacques Ellul, Walther Eichrodt, and the Role of Religion and the Old Testament in Debates about Rebuilding Europe after the Second World War"
Abstract: The relationship between technology and religion has been little discussed, although science and religion is a common topic. This paper uncovers a significant movement of intellectuals, social justice activists, and theologians following the Second World War, who argued that religion offered a unique way to reconceptualize technological society following the social and economic dislocation of the war. It looks particularly at the work of Jacques Ellul, lay theologian and member of the French Resistance who became the most widely read international critic of technological society, and Walter Eichrodt, one of the most celebrated Old Testament scholars of the twentieth century, and the role of the World Council of Churches in organizing massive conferences addressing the questions they raised. The paper suggests that it was Ellul's experience with this movement that laid the foundation of his later influential and devastating critique.

Return to top

Eric Conway "Thinking about Climate in the Space Age: NASA and American Climate Science"
Abstract: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is the largest funder of climate science in the United States, and has been since 1990. How did this happen? What impact has it had on American science? This paper argues that NASA’s institutional interest in planetary science has made it, through a complex weave of events and decisions, the leading organization in American climate science. Moreover, the agency’s science managers explicitly set out to remake the geosciences to better facilitate understanding of climate processes. The process they’ve set in motion is recasting the disciplinary boundaries of American science.

Return to top


Ned Hall “In Praise of Causal Mechanisms”
Abstract: Consider two theses about causation: (1) Causes are connected to their effects by way of mediating 'causal mechanisms' or 'processes'. (2) Scientific inquiry aims (at least in part) at discerning and describing the 'causal structure' of our world. Some of the best contemporary work on causation claims—often implicitly, but sometimes quite explicitly—that, in giving an account of causation, we should sacrifice (1) for the sake of producing an account that makes the best sense of (2). I will first try to show why this claim is quite attractive, and then obstreperously argue against it: I will aim to show that the best way to make sense of (2) is, in fact, by means of an account of causal structure that fully vindicates (1).

Return to top

Kenneth Weiss "How complicated is life…and how did it get that way?"
Abstract: In the 150 years since Darwin’s Origin of Species, thousands of investigators have studied the phenogenetic relationships, between genotypes and phenotypes, in plants, animals, and unicellular organisms. Interestingly, despite the greatness of his contributions, some of Darwin’s most important questions remain problematic even today. The nature of genetic causation is one of them. Recent advances in technology have enabled very large studies to map the genetic basis of many traits, including normal variation and disease. However, except for what appear to be simple ‘Mendelian’ traits, these efforts have typically only been able to account for a fraction of the overall genetic contribution to the trait. What we see is a few genes with replicably detectable effects, such as between cases and controls. But most of the heritability seems to be due to hundreds of genes with variants that are rare or very rare, and that mainly make individually small contributions to the trait. This is a problem of many-to-many causation that fits a classical model in quantitative genetics and evolution. New analytic approaches are attempting to come to grips with this causal landscape by playing with ideas of hypothesis and other kinds of statistical testing in epistemologically interesting ways. Rather than enumerating causes, there is a desire to assemble them into causal networks, but how we find and use such constructs is itself a work in progress. However, if we consider the basic nature of cells, tissues, and organisms, and how they have evolved, we understand networks as complex systems of interaction of causal elements, most of which can vary but whose presence in time and space must be compatible. From this point of view, it is productive to think of organisms in terms of intricate cooperation rather than competition.

Return to top

Friedrich Stadler "From ‘Methodenstreit’ to the ‘Science Wars’—Lessons from Methodological and Foundational Debates in the History and Philosophy of Science”
Abstract: The main issues recurring in the history and philosophy of science in the 20th century are manifestations of still unresolved methodological and foundational problems which can be investigated from a meta-theoretical as well as contextual point of view: unity and plurality of the sciences, two or three cultures of science since C.P. Snow and W. Lepenies, inductive or deductive reasoning, relativism and objectivism, the dualism of facts and values etc. This can be highlighted with some related controversies as variants of the Methodenstreit since 1990.

A special case study are the “Science Wars” in the 1990s caused by A. Sokal and J. Bricmont, where some of the already treated topics and problems were raised again under different cognitive and cultural contexts of postmodernism (including feminist philosophies of science) between relativism and objectivism/ realism. The challenge of a naturalist or rationalist version of science and its philosophy (with references to convention and construction) remains on the agenda again.

Return to top

Mark Wilson “How “Wave Front” Found its Truth-Values: A Study in Semantic Stabilization”
Abstract: Scientific theories never serve as islands entire unto themselves, for
they always engage with extra-theoretical considerations through their assigned boundary conditions, presumed approximations and so forth. Sometimes a close examination of these interconnections can force a substantially different semantic reading upon venerable doctrines, dramatically altering our understanding of a theory's basic "subject matter" in the process. In point of fact, conventional Maxwellian electromagnetism underwent a semantic upheaval of exactly this type in the latter half of the twentieth century and the case offers interesting insights for both philosophy of language and philosophy of science.

Return to top

Francis Everitt "The All-Important Casual Remark: Some Recollections of P. M. S. Blackett"
Abstract: Science comes to us in textbooks, lectures, papers, laboratory training, but also not least in the intuitive wisdom accumulated from long scientific experience. Blackett, when I first met him in 1955, had major achievements in four fields: nuclear physics, cosmic rays, operations research, and magnetism; and then in his late-fifties had burst – "brashly" as he put it – into geology and the as-yet-unnamed field of plate tectonics. One soon noticed his practice of dropping intriguing casual remarks: "Make sure you take plenty of data" – "This is what the Germans call a Versuchsexperiment" – "The days of Rutherford are over" – "One grows up abroad". I will discuss how such observations illuminate the history and philosophy of physics – how the remark about Rutherford can lead one to question Kuhn's view of scientific revolutions, and how a remark about Faraday's scientific style recently led me to rethink the nature of his influence on Maxwell.

"If you can't think what to do next in physics, invent some new technology. It always leads to new physics." – P. M. S. Blackett

 

Fall 2009

September 11, 2009

"Aristotle on Mind and the Science of Nature"
James Lennox, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh
abstract
Carlson School of Management Room 1-142 **Note change of venue**
Co-sponsored by the Department of Philosophy

September 18, 2009
No colloquium

September 25, 2009

"The Philosophical Inadequacy of Engineering"
Carl Mitcham, Hennebach Program in the Humanities, Colorado School of Mines
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

October 2, 2009

"Objects, individuals, and structures: in search of fundamental ontology"
Katherine Brading, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
abstract

October 9, 2009

"Trying Galileo"
Thomas Mayer, Augustana College, Rock Island, IL
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Center for Early Modern History and the Program in the History of Science and Technology

October 16, 2009

"Pragmatism and Contemporary Philosophy of Science"
Ronald Giere, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
abstract
Cowles Auditorium, Hubert H. Humphrey Hall **Note change of venue**
Co-sponsored by the Department of Philosophy

October 23, 2009

"The Representation of Time: Awareness, Mathematics, and the Puzzle of Asymmetry"
Emily Grosholz, Department of Philosophy, Penn State University
Carlson School of Management Room 1-142 **Note change of venue**
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Department of Philosophy

October 30, 2009

"Inside the Black(Body) Box: Jordan on the Wave–Particle Duality of Light"
Michel Janssen, History of Science and Technology, University of Minnesota
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

November 6, 2009

"Institute of Technology 75th History Project"
Robert W. Seidel, Thomas Misa, Maggie Hofius, Nathan Crowe, and Ronald Frazzini University of Minnesota
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

November 13, 2009

"Programming Enterprise: Women Entrepreneurs in Software and Services, 1965-1990"
Jeffrey Yost, Charles Babbage institute, University of Minnesota
Co-sponsored by the Program in the History of Science and Technology

November 20, 2009
No Colloquium

December 4, 2009
No Colloquium

December 9, 2009 WEDNESDAY 4:00 PM

“Social evolution and behavior in the microbe Dictyostelium discoideum”
Joan Strassmann, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University
335 Borlaug Hall (St Paul campus) **Note change of day and venue**
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Biology Interdisciplinary Graduate Group. Coffee and cookies in the Ecology lobby at 3:30 PM

December 11, 2009

"What is an organism?"
David Queller, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University
abstract
Co-sponsored by the Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Biology Interdisciplinary Graduate Group

Abstracts for Fall 09 colloquia:

James Lennox "Aristotle on Mind and the Science of Nature"
Abstract: Aristotle appears to endorse premises implying that an animal’s soul constitutes an important part of its nature and thus is to be studied by the natural scientist. The premises are:
1. Natural things have formal and material natures.
2. For living things, their formal nature is soul.
Which implies:
3. To investigate the formal nature of a living thing, the natural scientist must study soul.
It would seem, then, as many have concluded, that Aristotle is a naturalist regarding the study of the soul. Life with Aristotle is, however, rarely so simple. In Parts of Animals I. 1, Aristotle argues that the natural scientist should not study investigate all soul, since not all soul is a nature. Specifically, he argues that the natural scientist should not investigate thought (νοῦς) or reasoning (διανοία) (641b8-9).
This claim raises important questions about the unity of a theoretical investigation of the soul and about the scientific investigation of the mind. These questions will be explored by focusing attention on Aristotle’s reflections on methods of inquiry appropriate to the investigations of nature and of mind.

Return to top

Carl Mitcham "The Philosophical Inadequacy of Engineering"
Abstract: Engineering is a philosophically inadequate profession. This is not to claim that engineering is inadequate insofar as engineers fail to do philosophy. Such a claim might be true but trivial. Why should engineers be philosophers? Instead, the argument is that engineering is caught in a fundamental difficulty that is revealed by philosophical inquiry and thus may be described as philosophical in character. Reflective or critical analysis of engineering reveals that the profession is committed to an end (public safety, health, and welfare) that is not in fact integral to it. This philosophical inadequacy or deficiency leads to misunderstandings and false expectations both within and without the profession.

Return to top

Katherine Brading "Objects, individuals, and structures: in search of fundamental ontology"
Abstract: Contemporary structural realists are proposing a radical revision of our fundamental ontology: we should eliminate objects and replace them with “structure”: the world, in and of itself, is structure. The argument for this ontological version of structural realism begins from an alleged “metaphysical underdetermination” afflicting standard “object-oriented” scientific realism. I think that the argument fails, and I will discuss one reason why (the most interesting one, of course). This discussion focusses our attention on the concepts of object and individual, and on a view of physical objects that, I argue, originated with Newton in his discussion of Descartes on bodies and motion.
There is a positive outcome for structural realists, however, because the resources that the ontic structural realist employs when developing the argument from metaphysical underdetermination can be re-deployed to create a more promising strategy.
The draft papers that I will draw on for my talk can be found at http://www.nd.edu/~kbrading/Research/research.html: the structural realism stuff is in the joint paper with Alex Skiles, and the Descartes/Newton stuff is in ‘Newton’s law-constitutive approach to bodies: a response to Descartes’.

Return to top

Thomas Mayer "Trying Galileo"
Abstract: Galileo did himself in. True, he had help, whether from Paul V and Urban VIII, the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Congregation of the Index or even the Inquisition, but his fate was still largely his own fault. This talk focuses on his two trials before the Roman Inquisition, first in 1615–16 and again in 1632–33, the second leading to his condemnation for violating an order given in 1616 to abandon the belief that the sun was the center of the universe. Unlike most previous approaches, mine does not assume that the outcome was inevitable. Nor does it assume that philosophical, scientific or even theological issues were necessarily determinative. Instead, it takes a legal and political approach beginning from the fact that Galileo arrogantly rejected a legal way out of his second trial. Since both of his investigations contained lots of legal oddities, examining the Inquisition’s procedures (which have almost been ignored until very recently) leads to a much different picture than the still dominant view that Galileo was a victim of intolerance and superstition. Unfortunately, the Vatican’s recent proposal to reopen the case (including yet another publication of its acts) rests on at least two fundamental misunderstandings of Inquisition procedure: the fact that three cardinals and the pope did not sign Galileo’s sentence is insignificant. Popes never signed sentences and at least some of the cardinals often did not. Some sentences were signed only by the Inquisition’s commissary. Despite Urban’s missing signature, in both trials the pope’s role turns out to be vital. But equally, in both cases Paul and Urban had to at least bend if not break the rules in order to bring Galileo to book. He gave them both plenty of provocation.

Return to top

Ronald Giere "Pragmatism and Contemporary Philosophy of Science"
Abstract: Since Logical Empiricism ceased providing a general foundation for work in the philosophy of science, there has been much good work, but mostly without a unifying philosophical framework for the field. In this presentation I suggest that Pragmatism can play that role.

Return to top

Emily Grosholz "The Representation of Time: Awareness, Mathematics, and the Puzzle of Asymmetry"
Abstract: We often employ mathematics in science to bypass the accidents of human consciousness, but in representing time, mathematics may not only help physics, but also lead us astray just as surely as the limitations of our own organism.

Return to top

Michel Janssen "Inside the Black(body) Box: Jordan on the Wave–Particle Duality of Light"
Abstract: In 1909, Albert Einstein derived a formula for the mean square energy fluctuation in a small subvolume of a box filled with blackbody radiation. This formula is the sum of a wave term and a particle term. In a famous joint paper with Max Born and Werner Heisenberg submitted in late 1925, Pascual Jordan used the new matrix mechanics to show that one recovers both these terms in a simple model of quantized waves. So, contrary to what Einstein had concluded in 1909, the two terms do not require separate wave and particle mechanisms, but arise from a unified dynamical framework. This result not only solved Einstein's puzzle about the wave–particle duality of light, it also provided striking evidence for matrix mechanics, and can be seen as a strong argument for field quantization. After a brief review of Einstein's early work on fluctuations in blackbody radiation, I will present Jordan's result and the curious story of its reception. Rather than being hailed as a major contribution to quantum theory, Jordan's result met mostly with skepticism, even from his co-authors. I will argue that the skeptics were wrong. This talk is based on a joint paper with Anthony Duncan, "Pascual Jordan's resolution of the conundrum of the wave-particle duality of light." Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (2008): 634-666.

Return to top

Robert W. Seidel, Thomas Misa, Maggie Hofius, Nathan Crowe, and Ronald Frazzini "Institute of Technology 75th History Project"
Abstract: The Institute of Technology was created in 1935 and will celebrate its 75th anniversary in 2010. The IT Dean's office has commissioned an engaging and illustrated book-length of IT's history -- including its notable faculty, alumni, research and teaching. This presentation will give an overview of our research, and present our findings on the distinct aspects of the Institute of Technology. We accent IT's notable achievements in science and engineering, and profile its colorful leaders and faculty members.

Return to top

Joan Strassmann “Social evolution and behavior in the microbe Dictyostelium discoideum
Abstract: The ideal study of behavior, broadly interpreted, weaves a complete story and includes behaviors in natural environments, their evolutionary history, and their genetic and physiological bases. This is much more possible for microbial species than it is for large animals, like wasps or birds. Furthermore, microbes offer the opportunity of independent tests of theories of the evolution of behavior that were developed from work on animals. Protists like the social amoeba Dictyostelium have particular advantages because they are eukaryotes; they lack appreciable levels of horizontal gene transfer, and share many genes with animals. They are easily collected from soil, easily reared in the laboratory, easily frozen away, and have a species-rich phylogeny that varies in social behaviors. Here we examine recent progress in social evolution of Dictyostelium, including genes for behavior, the importance of relatedness, what mutation accumulation experiments tell us, and a genomic perspective.

Return to top

David Queller "What is an organism?"
Abstract: The organism is the fundamental unit of life and yet there is surprisingly little debate, and even less agreement, about what it is. Following on the realization that new levels of organisms have evolved from groups of lower-level organisms, we propose a social definition. An organism is a biological entity that has very high cooperation among its parts, and very little conflict, and is thus the locus of adaptation. We explore the implications of this view for what we consider to be organisms, and argue its advantages relative to earlier views.

Return to top

find us on Facebook